The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism

...Atheists like to say, “Where is the evidence for the existence of God?” and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence. When atheists engage me in conversation I’ve returned their demand for evidence by asking, “What kind of evidence do you want?” Strangely, they seem stumped by my request.

So I answer the question for them. “Would you like forensic evidence? Documentary evidence? Archeological evidence? Botanical and biological evidence? Would you like photographic evidence? Logical evidence? Historical evidence? Eyewitness evidence? Legal evidence?” In fact, all of these forms of evidence for the existence of God exist, but first we do have to play some of those philosophical head games.

You see, if God does not exist, then the natural order must be a closed system. That is to say, it must operate according to the rules of nature. No miracles are allowed because a miracle would mean that there is a force which is outside of nature and therefore independent and greater than nature. If there is just one miracle however — and we only need one miracle — then nature is not a closed system and there is a force greater than nature and outside of nature. If that miracle is intelligible, that is to say, it makes sense, then the force that is greater than nature is intelligent, and if it is intelligent then it is more than a force, it is a personality. The force, if you like, has a face.

The one miracle that Christians claim above all others is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Arguments for the existence of God are much more interesting when they begin with the evidence for the resurrection. Conversations with atheists should therefore begin with that one miracle, and discussions about that alleged miracle two thousand years ago become very interesting very quickly.
When considering the claims that Jesus Christ rose from the dead there are really only three options. First, that he did not really die and the “resurrection” was therefore only a form of resuscitation; second that he did die, but something happened so that his body vanished; and third, the witnesses to the resurrection were deluded, deceived or were themselves deceptive....





https://stream.org/the-resurrection-and-the-death-of-atheism/



God is real. The evidence is overwhelming. Atheists denial of the existence of God is in denial of real evidence that He is alive and real.

 

There is ZERO EVIDENCE that your IMAGINARY deity exists.

There is ZERO EVIDENCE that your Jesus "rose from the dead".

There is ZERO EVIDENCE of any VERIFIABLE "miracles".

There is ZERO EVIDENCE that the OP has established that Atheism will die off.

However there IS evidence that Atheism EXISTED BEFORE long the upstart Johnny-come-lately "christian" religion began.

There is EVIDENCE that Atheism is THRIVING and GROWING worldwide while that same EVIDENCE shows a DECLINE in Christianity.

So the OP resembles the THRASHING and FLAILING of the Dinosaurs as they faced their own EXTINCTION.

Atheism will ADAPT and SURVIVE and still be around as long humanity continues to inhabit our planet.

 

Because it isn't a question the person offering the evidence should be asking. If you feel there is evidence, you can present it, regardless of what form it takes. I think it's worth noting that the real blocker in this area isn't about evidence but about the lack of any clearly defined hypothesis for what is being proposed. What exactly is this God that you are providing evidence of?

Why? It is perfectly possible for there to be something (or some things) that exists outside the natural universe as we know it without that something being anything like a god, certainly without it being anything like the specific God you're thinking of.

That depends on how you're defining and identifying "miracles". In practical terms, all we can do is say that there are things we (currently) can't explain but that doesn't mean they're literally miraculous. After all, there are plenty of things that were once like that, some of which people attributed to divine intervention, magic or miracles, but that we now understand are perfectly natural phenomena.

There is also the question of what the logical limit of "natural" is. I would argue that if there is some kind of force we are currently unaware of but that it can and is having measurable effects on the universe, that would just be another part of nature. It wouldn't require us to throw away all of out existing understanding of how the universe works, only for us to adjust and expand on it, just as we have done before.

Even if that could be proven to have happened somehow (which I doubt), all it would prove would be that an individual was dead and then later appeared in some other form. To support the assertions behind that, it would also be necessary to prove the specifically proposed cause. Which still requires a clearly defined hypothesis.

 

We might want to amend that to the fact that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that you would possibly accept for what u believe that I call God. Personally, what works for me is what feels like observable reality --that the universe began in an unknowable form leaving cosmologists to assume supernatural explanations.

Ultimately --even w/ my understanding-- you are correct that God cannot exist. My take is that the divine essence is the source of all being & as such cannot exist. If we were working together on this we'd have to suggest some kind of hyper-existence maybe, but we're not working together but rather we seem to be squabbling.

Care for a truce and joint research?

 

No SERIOUS cosmologist ASSUMES "supernatural explanations" for what is at present UNKNOWN.

If you want to debate the source of existence then how about you begin with negating the Laws of Physics whereby matter can neither be created nor destroyed? Doing that invokes the PARADOX regarding an OMNIPOTENT "creator". It is a rabbit hole that does not produce a sustainable position.

If you IGNORE the Stone Age SUPERSTITIONS regarding an imaginary "beginning" and instead use our EXISTING scientific knowledge then LOGICALLY the universe has ALWAYS existed and will always exist in one form or another.

We are LIMITED by our ability to only be able to OBSERVE the current form of the universe and have to APPLY the Laws of Physics to the reality of Nature and make educated logical DEDUCTIONS derived from our current and evolving knowledge base.

As an Atheist if there is VERIFIABLE evidence that can be repeatedly and unequivocally establish the EXISTENCE of a "creator" then I will be at the front of the line to ACKNOWLEDGE it.

However to date there has been NOTHING and the TREND is in the direction of NULLIFYING all of the Stone Age superstitions.

Your turn!

 

LOL. Reading the op reminds me of the repubs crying about a rigged election.

 

If the personal form of God exists, don't forget he loves Buddhists, Muslims and Atheists, as well.

 

Got to organize a rally to STOP those Atheists from STEALING the body of Jesus from that tomb.

 

Atheists will disappear before the 2nd coming. Many will get the “proof” they’ve been demanding and will follow after the counterfeit deception of the evil one.

 

We need to work together & set aside the aitheist/theist contest that's so popular on these threads.

First, let's agree on what's "natural". I suggest that anything that's in our universe of 3 dimensions + time is "natural". Let's lable all that new-age cr@p about ghosts & parallel universes w/ mind control until our next party where we're trying to some chick's panties. If we're not together pse stop me & we can work on this more but if we're on the same page pse google keyword universe origin image & you'll get something like--

--which should be boring stuff u've been thru a thousand times. Now let's think together. The artist is outside of time and space looking in. The artist is in the "supernatural".

We still together?

 

Did you HURT yourself MOVING your goalposts with such HASTE?

FTR how many times has this IMAGINARY "2nd coming" NEVER happened?

That should be a CLUE that it will NEVER happen.

 

What tomb crucified criminals had their
bodies dumped or left for scavaging animals.

 

We AGREE.

We DISAGREE!

Nope, we only agree on the former and not the latter.



The artist is in the NATURAL Universe while his image is entirely in his IMAGINATION.

Same as the artist with the representation of the Universe through Time. His image is NOT a reflection of REALITY but rather a means to REPRESENT our UNDERSTANDING as to how our CURRENT form of the Universe evolved from an EVENT that left trace EVIDENCE for us to OBSERVE.

 

Or he hates them all equally.

 

OK, this is probably something we can still agree on after all. Yes, the artist was probably in the natural universe. The thing is that the artist himself (herself?) was in the 'natural' and only the imagination was supernatural. The artist was presenting us a view point as seen from the supernatural. OK, if u don't like the word "supernatural" maybe u could change that to "non-natural" or what ever.

This is getting a bit tedious, but are we in agreement now?

 

Lol. There is no evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone was resurrected from the dead.

And no, there is nothing resembling forensic, legal or documentary evidence for the existence of a god, no archaeological evidence, no biological evidence whatsoever, and no photographic evidence either. Logical evidence would be irrelevant (you can "prove" just about anything using logic, but without any material evidence to back it up, it's meaningless) at best. There is no historical evidence, either, and that brings me back to the non-existence of Jesus. He lacks historical and other forms of evidence as a human being, demigod or otherwise. He is attested to solely by religious sources, and these sources are completely unverified, contradictory and inconsistent, religiously biased, and not evidently contemporaneous, all having been recorded decades if not centuries after the alleged events. It's also problematic that Jesus is not even treated as a flesh-and-blood person by Paul or other authors outside of the gospels, and the gospels couch the alleged earthly life of Jesus in myriad fantastic claims involving miracles and other divine acts, including the outlandish claims in Matthew that "darkness came over all the land" for three hours (a symbolic number) and that the dead rose from their graves:

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.​

Such extraordinary events would have left behind some historical record, don't you think? Again, there is no such evidence for Jesus or these alleged events surrounding him. There is no historical or archaeological evidence that Herod had children killed in an attempt to kill baby Jesus, either, and the way Pontius Pilatus is portrayed not only lacks any corroborating evidence from Roman records, but is inconsistent with what is known about him and about Roman practices in Judea.

When considering the claims that Jesus Christ rose from the dead there are really only three options. First, that he did not really die and the “resurrection” was therefore only a form of resuscitation; second that he did die, but something happened so that his body vanished; and third, the witnesses to the resurrection were deluded, deceived or were themselves deceptive....​

Why does your author exclude the possibility that there was no such event and no witnesses in the first place? I'll tell you why -- it's a possibility that no Christian wants to admit or face. They don't want to deal with the possibility that is best supported by the available evidence, which is that the gospels are purely fictional and symbolic in nature, not any kind of history describing real events, beyond of course the most basic things, such as the war with Rome and the destruction of the Jewish temple.

Christianity in its modern form exists first because it was born out of a time of crisis for the Jews, who had just lost their sacred temple and their homeland, creating a crisis of faith, and because Rome eventually created and adopted its own form of Christianity with a healthy dose of Roman pagan beliefs and practices mixed in to create an imperial religion that would help hold the empire together.

 

The term supernatural has theist connotations so it is better to avoid it if you do not want the artist to be an agent of religion.

In the Dali image he was presenting a hypothetical image of what might be considered to be the flexibility of time as it can be perceived from different points of view. To someone absorbed in what they are doing "time flies" but for someone who is bored time is "dragging along".

In your original image it was what might be considered to be a "time-scape" similar to the stories of historical events captured in tapestries. Yes, there was a certain degree of artistic license because it was an attempt to simplify the events as Science understands them at present.

So if we agree on that then where are you going with this?

 

This poster confuses his mere assertions with evidence. He's funny that way.

 

Maybe I could be missing something here but it looks like you're pointing out something you don't like & asking me what I plan to do to fix it. You're not responding to my query about what other term we'd like to use instead of "supernatural". Look, I'm not interested in verbal jujitsu, I'm only interested in consulting to find truth. We can work together or not, your call.

 

When Satan impersonates Jesus and walks among us claiming to be the Son of God and doing “miracles” supposedly in His name, many will take that as evidence and wonder after the beast.

 

Costume parties and magic acts?
What happens in Vegas,stays in Vegas!

 

Let's recap;

You used the THEIST term "supernatural" and then substituted it with "not-natural" without DEFINING what you are trying to establish.

I CLARIFIED my own understanding of what the artists were doing and asked for your OBJECTIVE in having this discussion.

Your response above is to "find truth" which is yet another THEIST term that you have NOT defined.

Find what "truth"?

1. Truth as defined in the dictionary as being the binary opposite of false?

2. Truth as defined in the dictionary as being in accordance with scientific facts and/or reality?

3. Truth as defined in the dictionary as being what theists BELIEVE?

Which is it?

 

Elvis is more popular than Jesus in Vegas.

 

Mexico is way way more Christian than the USA, if the right wants to live in a Christian nation, they could move there

Mexico is 92% Christian

8 more percent and God will pave their roads with Gold

 

Very interesting. The first impression I got from your reaction was that you had no interest in a discussion but your intent was as I guessed "verbal jujitsu", but on second thought another possibility is suggesting that you're merely unfamiliar w/ the art of conversation & u lack the skills of give and take. Please allow me to show you what I'm into & u can decide whether you're willing to go along.

When I use a term you're not comfortable w/ like "truth", an option you have is to simply do a web search key word "define truth" and u get something like this--

--and since words are supposed to mean things you can appropriately assume I'm using a standard dictionary definition or you can clarify (by posting "lets use the standard definition") if this concerns you.

Another possibility here is that you view the word "truth" as more than a term but rather a concept, and a major concern for us to be able to continue is to know whether you subscribe to a belief system where everyone has their own truth, their own reality, and their own virtue. You may be perfectly happy to lie, cheat, plot a physical attack against me, perhaps even attempt murder --all comfortably within your private moral code.

If that's the case we probably don't want to continue. If that is not the case please tell me if there is an understanding of truth that we could possibly share.